U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

91–385 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–914 

EXAMINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND PRUDENCE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 

ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 24, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–72 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES AND BORDER SECURITY

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ORRIN HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

STEPHANIE MARTZ, Democratic Chief Counsel 

MATT JOHNSON, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ................... 1 

Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36 

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 38 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 35 

Pearce, Russell, President, BanAmnestyNow.com, Mesa, Arizona ...................... 7 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

DeConcini, Dennis W., Partner, DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin & Lacy, P.C., 

Tucson, Arizona .................................................................................................... 8 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Gallardo, Hon. Steve M., Arizona State Senator, Phoenix, Arizona ................... 11 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Landfried, Todd, Executive Director, Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, Phoenix, Arizona ........................................................................................ 13 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union, Washington, DC, statement ............................. 91 

Giovagnoli, Mary, Director, American Immigration Council, Washington, DC, 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 107 

Rights Working Group, Margaret Huang, Executive Director, Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 108 

Young, Ambassador Johnny, Executive Director, Migration and Refugee Services, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC, statement ......... 119 

(1) 

EXAMINING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY AND 

PRUDENCE OF STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ENFORCING IMMIGRATION LAW 

TUESDAY, APRIL 24, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, 

AND BORDER SECURITY, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in 

Room G–50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E. Schumer, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Schumer and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Chairman SCHUMER. Good morning, everyone. The hearing will 

come to order. 

At today’s hearing we will be discussing the constitutionality and 

prudence of the many State and local immigration laws enacted 

during the past few years. In 2011 alone, State legislators from 

across the country introduced 1,607 bills and resolutions relating 

to immigration. By the end of the year, 42 States had enacted 197 

new laws. 

Tomorrow the Supreme Court is going to be considering whether 

the Arizona law, known as SB 1070, is constitutional. Specifically, 

the Court will be deciding if States can enact comprehensive immigration enforcement laws designed to promote the self-deportation 

of illegal immigrants. Five States—Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, 

South Carolina, and Utah—have crafted laws following Arizona’s 

example. Court challenges have been filed against all five of those 

laws, and the outcome of those cases will likely be dictated by the 

Supreme Court’s decision in the Arizona case. 

Discussing both the constitutionality and prudence of these laws 

is necessary because the Supreme Court will base its decision upon 

what the Senate had previously said about the role of State and 

local government in enforcing federal immigration law. 

The wisdom of the Arizona law is also currently being debated 

around the country. For instance, SB 1070 has recently been endorsed as a model for the country by Mitt Romney, the Republican 

nominee for President. Others such as Marco Rubio have said they 

do not believe the Arizona law should be expanded nationwide. In 
2 

my view, these State laws are both counterproductive and unconstitutional. 

In terms of being counterproductive, the statistics could not be 

any clearer in terms of the economic damage these laws cause. In 

Arizona, studies have shown that after SB 1070 was passed, the 

convention and tourism industries lost as much as $140 million. 

Moreover, the agriculture industry has seen much of its crops destroyed due to a lack of labor. In Alabama, a study by the University of Alabama found that the Alabama law is projected to shrink 

Alabama’s economy by at least $2.3 billion annually and cost the 

State $70,000 per year—sorry, 70,000 jobs per year. 

In terms of being unconstitutional, our Founding Fathers gave 

Congress plenary power over immigration law. The Supreme Court 

has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article 

I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and their 

manner of execution are committed solely to the Federal Government. Even though some on the other side want to limit the Federal Government’s power and increase the power of the States, immigration is not and never has been an area where States are able 

to exercise independent authority. This makes sense, both legally 

as a matter of constitutional interpretation and practically as a 

matter of sound public product. 

Immigration involves international commerce and sensitive foreign relations. Just as we would never allow 50 States to have 

their own inconsistent and independent trade laws, we should not 

have 50 States establishing and enforcing their own inconsistent 

immigration laws. And even if States like Arizona say they are 

only helping the Federal Government to enforce the law, this issue 

is much like federal tax law where the Federal Internal Revenue 

Service interprets and enforces the law as opposed to 50 State 

agencies going to people’s houses to ensure that they have properly 

filed their federal tax returns. 

Only federal comprehensive immigration reform can accomplish 

the three objectives most Americans want to see achieved with regard to immigration: first, ending illegal immigration; second, fixing our dysfunctional legal immigration system; and, third, addressing the status of people here without legal status. 

In 2010, many of my Democratic colleagues on this Committee 

released a white paper with me outlining our proposal for immigration reform. Then, as a good-faith downpayment to encourage negotiations with those who said fix the border first, we passed a $600 

million supplemental Border Security Act that added 1,500 troops 

on the border, deployed more unmanned aerial drones, and increased border fencing and technology. The border bill was hailed 

by my Arizona colleagues as a significant border security accomplishment that they were proud to cosponsor. As a result of this 

bill, Arizona’s 373-mile border with Mexico is now patrolled by over 

5,200 Border Patrol agents and 300 National Guardsmen, a 31 percent increase from 2008, which has resulted in a 61 percent reduction in unlawful border crossing over the same period. And yesterday, a Pew Hispanic Center study reported that immigration from 

Mexico has dropped to net zero when comparing the number of people entering the U.S. from Mexico to the number of people returning to Mexico. 
3 

Some in Arizona might wish to take credit for this, but the study 

shows this is a national trend based on increased federal enforcement at the southern border and decreased availability of jobs for 

foreign workers. And this chart reveals immigration to the U.S. 

from Mexico. It is national. And because of what we have done on 

the border, as you can see, the number has gone significantly down 

from a high of 770,000 people in 2002, now 140,000 people in 2010. 

That is a dramatic drop. 

We have repeatedly invited our Republican colleagues to sit down 

with us and discuss how best to reform our broken immigration 

system in a manner both parties can support. It will only pass if 

it is bipartisan. To this date, our colleagues will not even sit down 

with us and discuss comprehensive immigration reform legislation. 

Finally, when small, noncontroversial immigration matters are 

proposed that can help create jobs, they are blocked in the Senate. 

Consequently, States are now taking matters into their own hands 

and are passing a multitude of immigration laws that touch upon 

a variety of subjects, such as employment authorization and 

verification, border security, work visas, and higher education— 

areas that have always been the exclusive province of the Federal 

Government. 

I believe it is simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy to have 50 States doing 50 different things 

with regard to immigration policy. I also believe that Congress has 

clearly and repeatedly indicated its intent to preempt States from 

creating their own immigration enforcement regimes, which is why 

I believe SB 1070 and laws like it are unconstitutional. 

For instance, in 1997, Congress passed Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows State and local law 

enforcement to enter into partnerships with ICE to conduct immigration enforcement within their jurisdictions. In enacting 287(g), 

Congress made it clear it did not want the States, like Arizona, 

taking immigration enforcement matters into their own hands and 

instead wanted State officials to act with guidance, training, and 

supervision of the Federal Government. 

In addition, Congress explicitly wrote employment verification 

laws that were designed to punish employers rather than employees for violations of immigration law. Arizona, by contrast, has decided to criminalize the individuals who seek work to feed their 

families. This conflict of law plainly contravenes our stated intent 

in passing numerous federal immigration workplace statutes. 

I am, therefore, announcing that, should the Supreme Court 

choose to ignore these plain and unambiguous statements of Congressional intent and uphold SB 1070, I will introduce legislation 

that will reiterate that Congress does not intend for States to enact 

their own immigration enforcement schemes. 

My legislation will re-emphasize that State officials can only engage in the detection, apprehension, and detention of unlawfully 

present individuals if they are doing so pursuant to an explicit 

agreement with the Federal Government and are being supervised 

and trained by federal officials. States like Arizona and Alabama 

will no longer be able to get away with saying they are simply 

‘‘helping the Federal Government’’ to enforce the law when they are 

really writing their own laws and knowingly deploying untrained 
4 

officers with a mission of arresting anyone and everyone who might 

fit the preconceived profile of an illegal immigrant. 

My legislation will also re-emphasize that State and local governments are preempted from enacting their own employment 

verification laws and penalties. Federal preemption of employment 

verification laws has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many other business groups and trade associations. And 

I hope colleagues from both sides of the aisle will join me in this 

effort in the event it becomes necessary, which I hope and believe 

it will not because I do believe the Supreme Court will decide that 

SB 1070 is not constitutional based on the evidence that is all on 

one side here. 

I now would like to turn it over to Senator Durbin for an opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for calling 

this hearing of the Immigration Subcommittee on the question of 

SB 1070, the Arizona immigration law, which I join you in hoping 

that the Supreme Court finds unconstitutional. Under our Constitution, States do not have the right to pass their own laws preempting Federal laws on immigration. 

It is wrong and counterproductive to criminalize people because 

of their status, their immigration status. Law enforcement, incidentally, does not have the time or resources to prosecute or incarcerate every undocumented immigrant. The Arizona immigration 

law will simply deter undocumented immigrants from being part of 

the community and cooperating with law enforcement where necessary. 

Do not take my word for it. Ask the Arizona Association of Chiefs 

of Police who oppose SB 1070. 

There is another troubling aspect of the Arizona immigration 

law. According to experts, this law encourages racial profiling. Last 

week, I held a hearing on racial profiling, the first one in 10 years 

on Capitol Hill. We heard testimony about the provision in this 

law, Arizona’s immigration law, requiring police officers to check 

the immigration status of any individual if they have ‘‘reasonable 

suspicion’’ that the person is an undocumented immigrant. The explanation of the law went further to say how you can gather this 

notion of reasonable suspicion, and it went on to say by the way 

a person dresses or by their command of the English language. 

Now, one of the witnesses at this racial profiling hearing was 

Ron Davis. He is the chief of police of East Palo Alto, California. 

Chief Davis, an African American, along with 16 other chief law 

enforcement officers and the Major Cities Chiefs of Police Association, filed a brief in the Arizona case before the Supreme Court. 

This is what they said: ‘‘The statutory standard of ‘reasonable suspicion’ of unlawful presence in the United States will as a practical 

matter produce a focus on minorities, and specifically Latinos.’’ 

Now, instead of measures that hurt law enforcement and promote racial profiling, like SB 1070, we need practical solutions to 

fix our broken immigration system. I could not agree with my col-
5 

league Senator Schumer more. Congress needs to face its responsibility to pass immigration reform. 

Eleven years ago, I introduced the DREAM Act. This legislation 

would allow a select group of immigrant students who grew up in 

this country, came here as infants and children, but would give 

them a chance to earn their way to citizenship by attending college 

or serving in the military. Eleven years we have been struggling 

to pass this. We have had majority votes on the Senate floor but 

never the magic 60 number that we need to pass it. 

The best way, I have said to my colleagues, to understand what 

the DREAM Act is about is to get to meet the young people who 

would qualify for this legislation. As Senator Rubio of Florida has 

said, ‘‘Let us let these young people get right what their parents 

got wrong.’’ These people call themselves ‘‘Dreamers.’’ Under the 

Arizona law, SB 1070, these young people would be targets for 

prosecution and incarceration. Why? It is beyond reasonable suspicion. They have stood up and said, ‘‘We are undocumented, we 

are DREAM students. We want a chance to become American citizens.’’ Under the DREAM Act, they would be future citizens who 

would make our country a better place. 

I want you to meet six targets of this bill, the Arizona immigration law. Each and every one of them is a resident of Arizona. They 

have stepped up publicly to tell their stories about being brought 

to the United States by their parents as infants and children, now 

begging for a chance to earn their way to legal status and citizenship. 

The first, Dulce Matuz. She graduated from Arizona State University with a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering. She cofounded the Arizona DREAM Act Coalition, an organization of 

more than 200 DREAM Act students. Last week, Dulce was named 

one of the 100 Most Influential People in the World by Time Magazine. Dulce Matuz is a target of the Arizona immigration law. 

Now meet Mayra Garcia. She is president of the Cottonwood 

Youth Advisory Commission in her hometown of Cottonwood, Arizona. She graduated from high school in 2010 with a 3.98 GPA. 

She is now a sophomore at a prestigious university in California. 

She would be a target of the Arizona immigration law. 

Now meet Juan Rios. In high school, Juan was a leader in the 

Air Force Junior ROTC. In 2010, he graduated from Arizona State 

University with a degree in aeronautical engineering. Since graduation, Juan has put his life on hold. Because of American law, he 

cannot enlist in our military or work in the aerospace industry. 

Juan is a target of the Arizona immigration law. 

Now meet Jose Magana. Jose graduated as valedictorian of his 

high school. At Arizona State University, he joined the speech and 

debate team, where he ranked fifth in the Nation. In 2008, Jose 

graduated summa cum laude with a major in business management from Arizona State University. Later this year, Jose will 

graduate from Baylor University Law School in Waco, Texas. He 

cannot be licensed to practice law in the United States because he 

has no country. Jose is a target of the Arizona immigration law. 

Finally, meet Angelica Hernandez. In high school, she served in 

Junior ROTC and was president of the National Honor Society. 

Last year, she graduated from Arizona State University as the 
6 

Outstanding Senior in the Mechanical Engineering Department. 

Angelica is a target of the Arizona immigration law. 

Unlike the Arizona immigration law, the DREAM Act is a practical solution to a serious problem which treats these young people 

and thousands of others in a humane and just way. SB 1070 would 

harm law enforcement and encourage racial profiling, going after 

the very people that you have just met. That is not consistent with 

our values as a Nation. It is not consistent with our constitutional 

values. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Durbin, for an excellent 

and heartfelt statement. 

Having no other people here, we will turn to our panelists. I am 

going to introduce each of them. Their entire statements will be 

read into the record, and then we will let each of them make a 

statement. 

Russell Pearce is currently the president of 

BanAmnestyNow.com, an organization advocating for increased immigration enforcement and border security. He was the former 

president of the Arizona State Senate, a position he held until November 2011. He is most widely known as the author of SB 1070, 

the Arizona law whose constitutionality is being decided by the Supreme Court and that is the subject of this hearing today. He was 

originally elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 2000 

and the Arizona Senate in 2008. He also served as the director of 

Arizona’s Motor Vehicle Division, the director of the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, and as a deputy for 23 years with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. 

Dennis DeConcini served as U.S. Senator for Arizona for 18 

years, from 1977 to 1995. Prior to that, he served as Pima County 

attorney, the chief prosecutor and civil attorney for the county and 

school districts within the Tucson border area. He currently serves 

as a partner in the law firm of DeConcini, McDonald, Yetwin & 

Lacy, with offices in Tucson, Phoenix, and Washington, D.C. 

State Senator Steve Gallardo is a member of the Arizona State 

Senate representing District 13. He previously served in the Arizona House of Representatives from 2003 through 2009. He has 

served on numerous State and local boards and committees and is 

the leading sponsor of the State Senate bill, Arizona State Senate 

bill, that would repeal SB 1070. 

Todd Landfried is the executive director of Arizona Employers for 

Immigration Reform, a grassroots organization comprised of 400 

small, medium, and large businesses committed to sensible federal 

immigration policy. Mr. Landfried’s organization filed an amicus 

brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition to SB 1070. 

Gentlemen, your entire statements will, without objection, be 

read into the record, and we will first call on Mr. Pearce. You may 

proceed as you wish, sir. 
7 

STATEMENT OF RUSSELL PEARCE, PRESIDENT, 

BANAMNESTYNOW.COM, MESA, ARIZONA 

Mr. PEARCE. Good morning. I am Russell Pearce, the author and 

driving force behind SB 1070, which is overwhelmingly supported 

by citizens across this Nation. Thank you, Chairman Schumer, for 

inviting me here before this honorable Committee. It is an honor 

for me to appear. As you know, the illegal alien problem is a critical issue, not just in Arizona but across this Nation, and the effects of it ripple throughout society. 

In addressing this problem, we must begin by remembering that 

we are a Nation of laws. We must have the courage, the fortitude, 

to enforce, with compassion but without apology, those laws that 

protect the integrity of our borders and the rights of our citizens 

from those who break our laws. SB 1070 removes the political 

handcuffs from law enforcement. All law enforcement agencies 

have the legal authority and moral obligation to uphold our laws, 

just like Sheriff Joe, who keeps his oath and does the job he was 

hired to do. 

The invasion of illegal aliens we face today—convicted felons, 

drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers, and even terrorists—pose one of the greatest threats to our Nation in terms of political, economic, and national security. 

During the debate of SB 1070, a rancher friend of mine, Rob 

Krentz, was murdered on the border by an illegal alien. I have attended the funerals of citizens and law enforcement officers murdered by illegal aliens. I have a son, a deputy sheriff, who was 

critically wounded in the line of duty in a gun battle with an illegal 

alien while serving a warrant. I, too, was critically wounded, shot 

in the chest and hand in the line of duty. I have seen the real costs 

and damage caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this country. 

In Arizona alone, the annual cost of the illegal immigration problem is approximately $2.6 billion; that is just to educate, medicate, 

and incarcerate. And those numbers do not reflect the costs of 

crimes committed by those here illegally or the jobs lost by residents. 

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, underscored for all 

Americans the link between immigration, law enforcement, and 

terrorism. Four of the five leaders of the 9/11 attack were in violation of our immigration laws and had contact with law enforcement 

but were not arrested. The failure to enforce U.S. immigration laws 

was instrumental in the deaths of nearly 3,000 people on that tragic day in America. 

Under federal law, sanctuary policies are illegal, but the Obama 

administration does not sue those cities that adopt such illegal policies. Instead, it chooses to sue Arizona for enforcing the law, protecting its citizens, protecting jobs for lawful residents, and protecting the taxpayers and the citizens of this Republic in attempting to secure our borders. 

During my 11 years in Arizona Legislature, I authored numerous 

legislative initiatives designed to protect the State of Arizona from 

the adverse effects of illegal immigration and, most importantly, to 

uphold the rule of law. They include: in 2004, voter ID at the polls, 

passed by 57 percent of the voters; in 2006, a constitutional amendment denying bond to illegal aliens who commit serious crime, 
8 

passed by 78 percent of the voters, 60 percent of Hispanics; also in 

2006, illegal aliens who sue an American citizen cannot receive punitive damages, passed by 75 percent of the voters; in 2007, protecting American jobs and honest employers by mandating the use 

of e-verify for every business in the State of Arizona. 

I am also proud to say that each of these initiatives has become 

law and survived the various legal challenges. In fact, the last time 

I was in Washington, the Supreme Court upheld the e-verify law 

against the unpatriotic challenge by the Chamber and the Obama 

administration. 

Because most provisions of SB 1070 are in effect, the citizens of 

Arizona are safer. According to the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, which represents the rank-and-file police officers, and I 

quote, ‘‘Since SB 1070, Phoenix has experienced a 30-year low 

crime rate. Six hundred police vacancies, budget cuts, and old policing strategies did not bring about these falling crime rates. SB 

1070 did . . . .The deterrence factor this legislation brought about 

was clearly instrumental in our unprecedented drop in crime. And 

all of this without a single civil rights, racial profiling, or biased 

policing complaint.’’ 

Simply put, SB 1070 has clearly worked, and Arizona has acted 

within its authority. The Supreme Court has held the States can 

utilize their inherent police powers to enforce immigration laws. SB 

1070 directs Arizona law enforcement officers to cooperate and 

communicate with federal authorities regarding enforcement of federal immigration laws and imposes penalties under Arizona law for 

non-compliance. 

It is only these simple and clear law enforcement measures that 

are before the Supreme Court. This common-sense law is fully 

within the authority of Arizona as it protects the citizens from the 

effects of illegal immigration and upholds the rule of law. And protecting our citizens is the highest duty of any public official. 

Thank you, God bless, and may God continue to bless this Republic. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pearce appears as a submission 

for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Pearce. 

Next we will go to Senator DeConcini. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS W. DECONCINI, PARTNER, DECONCINI, McDONALD, YETWIN & LACY, P.C., TUCSON, ARIZONA 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman and Senator Durbin, I want to 

thank you very much for the opportunity to address this very important issue not only to my home State of Arizona but to our Nation. The constitutionality and prudence of federal immigration 

laws being enforced by State and local governments is indeed a 

complex issue. 

Mr. Chairman, I am a native Arizona resident. I grew up in that 

State. I came from neighborhoods and a business and had a law 

practice with a multitude of Hispanic and Mexican friends, investors, and what have you. We worked together. We shared each other’s heritage and experiences. The culture of our State reflects the 

rich history of the Latino influence. But during the last two years, 

Mr. Chairman, we have unduly harmed our legal Latino residents 
9 

in this process: Unfortunately the solution to the problem of people 

coming into this country illegally, we have let rhetoric and political 

advantage cloud sound judgment. 

Mr. Chairman, this hearing partly is about 1070, and maybe 

mostly, seeing that the Supreme Court will address it tomorrow. I 

believe SB 1070 is ill-founded, mean-spirited, and divisive. In addition, it requires State and local law enforcement to carry out immigration responsibilities that lie with the Federal Government clearly. 

Prior to being elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976, as the Chairman pointed out, I was the Pima County attorney. During that 

time, I was appointed by Governor Raul Castro to head the Arizona 

Drug Control District because of the tremendous drug trafficking 

problem we had along our border with Mexico. The creation of this 

Drug Control District did not create laws that contradicted federal 

responsibility. It was a cooperative effort put together by the legislature, a Republican legislature, to address the problem in accordance with the cooperation of the federal agencies, and we did just 

that. I mention this because there is some similarity to the illegal 

immigration issue, but laws need to be formulated in cooperation 

but not hostile to each other. 

When I came to the Senate, I was appointed to this august Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Committee on Appropriations. Both had jurisdiction over Border Patrol, Customs, and the 

General Services Administration. I used all the jurisdictions to 

focus law enforcement resources on the U.S. southwest border 

along with my many colleagues at the time, including some not 

from border States, like Alan Simpson and Mark Hatfield of Oregon. We worked in a bipartisan effort. 

I participated as a Member of the Select Committee on Immigration and Refugee Policy along with my friends Strom Thurmond, 

Alan Simpson, and Ted Kennedy. The Committee issued a report 

in 1981 which led to the passage of a comprehensive immigration 

reform bill during President Reagan’s administration. Let me remind everyone, President Reagan supported that bill and the setting of a date to grandfather those in this country who were here 

illegally with a pathway to citizenship if they did not have a criminal record. I continue to work hard to see that this happens and 

occurs. 

Many ask why our efforts did not work way back in 1981, and 

there is an answer. We did not secure the borders even though we 

passed comprehensive immigration reform. 

Former Senator Pete Domenici and I chaired the Appropriations 

Committee, and we constantly added earmarks—sorry to use that 

word here in this august body today—but we added money that 

was not in the budget, and often it was taken out for other reasons. 

At that time, the Congress and the public just was not focusing 

on the severity of the border problems. When I left the Senate, the 

number of Border Patrol agents had increased from approximately 

4,000 in 1995 well over 21,000 today, as the Chairman points out, 

with over 5,000 agent deployed to the Arizona border. 

So those who say the Federal Government has not done its job 

in ensuring border security are wrong. I was in Congress from 1977 

to 1995. I can tell you the Federal Government in recent years has 
10 

made heroic efforts to secure our borders. It started under the previous administration, a Republican administration, and continues 

now with such programs as Secure Communities. 

We are called here today to debate the merits and the constitutionality of 1070. I believe it is unconstitutional for many of the 

reasons the Chairman pointed out, which I will not reiterate. Having worked with law enforcement officers much of my life, I know 

this law puts law enforcement in an untenable position. Police officers are trained to profile behavior—behavior—not people. This law 

does the opposite. It profiles people. If you have brown skin in my 

State, you are going to be asked to prove your citizenship. The law 

has bad consequences. Let me play a clip here of an individual, and 

it will show you just exactly what I am talking about. This was 

taken just a few days after the bill passed both Houses and right 

before the Governor signed it. 

Would you play the clip, please? 

[Videotape played.] 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you for taking the extra 

time to view this video. This may have been unintended consequences, as they say, but this is what has happened to many in 

my State. This is not just one example that jumps out at you. 

Let me just give you one more quick one. Some statewide political leaders and county elected officials say that as a direct result 

of undocumented people coming into our State, horrific crimes have 

been caused, such as beheadings in the desert of Arizona along our 

border; that terrorists are sneaking in. There is no proof to this. 

These examples have turned out to be totally false, including those 

made by our Governor, who had to retract them about the beheadings found in the desert. 

But this demonstrates how political this issue has become. It has 

not been about creating law enforcement solutions to secure our 

borders from criminals or about deportation of those with criminal 

records—which by the way is a minor percentage of those illegals 

who commit the crimes here. I could go on and tell you a lot of different stories because I talk to a lot of different people. 

Finally, let me ask: Who is the target of 1070? As Senator Durbin pointed out, if anyone tells you it is only the drug or gun-trafficking criminals, they are mistaken. SB 1070 targets those with 

brown skin, and in my State those are my neighbors, my friends, 

and successful business associates. I have been in law enforcement 

and the U.S. Senate when we could fix this law, and we fixed part 

of it, and now 1070 has taken us in the wrong direction. 

As a legislator, I know—and as law enforcement—that whenever 

you mix politics and law enforcement, you create a toxic environment, and that is what has happened in my State of Arizona. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for being longer than anticipated. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeConcini appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. No problem. Thank you, Senator DeConcini. 

And now we will hear from Senator Gallardo. 
11 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE M. GALLARDO, SENATOR, 

ARIZONA STATE SENATE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 

Mr. GALLARDO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members. For the 

record, my name is Steve Gallardo. I am a State Senator from Arizona representing District 13. It is my privilege to have the opportunity to give my perspective and experience regarding Arizona’s 

Senate bill 1070. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, Senate bill 1070 has perpetuated a 

climate of fear and division within the State of Arizona. Without 

any doubt, Senate bill 1070 has done Arizona and her people a 

great disservice and has done nothing to secure the borders or resolve any of our immigration problems. 

Arizona law has unfortunately subjected Latino citizens to racial 

profiling and harassment. 

The following situations will illustrate how Senate bill 1070 has 

negatively affected the lives of many Latinos throughout the State 

of Arizona. 

Senate bill 1070 has created racial tension and distrust between 

Latinos and law enforcement as well as Latinos and non-Latino 

neighbors. 

I will give you an example: The tragic death of Juan Varela, a 

United States citizen who was murdered in front of his home by 

his neighbor, Gary Kelley, just 13 days after Governor Brewer 

signed Senate bill 1070 into law. Right after the bill was signed 

into law, Gary Kelley yelled racial slurs: ‘‘Go back to Mexico. If you 

do not go back to Mexico, you are going to die.’’ Before long, Gary 

Kelley pointed his .38 revolver at Juan Varela and shot him in the 

face. Mr. Varela died in the front of his home. He leaves a wife and 

a 13-year-old daughter. 

Senate bill 1070 has made Latinos the target of criminals because Latinos are less likely to report crimes to local law enforcement for fear of having themselves deported or even a loved one 

deported. 

Many Latina women face nightmare situations if they are victims of domestic violence. Because of Senate bill 1070, many of 

these women are placed in the position where they cannot report 

their abuser in fear of getting deported. In some cases, these 

women are held hostage in their own home. Mr. Chairman and 

members, no woman, regardless of immigration status, should ever 

be placed in harm’s way. 

Senate bill 1070 has shifted the priorities of law enforcement to 

focus its attention away from the criminal investigations and 

placed squarely on local law enforcement, immigration enforcement. This comes at the expense of rape, assault, and murder victims. 

Most recently, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has come 

under fire for their failure to investigate 400 sexual assault cases. 

Many of these cases involve children. Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office focuses their attention on immigration enforcement. 

Senate bill 1070 and laws like it have fostered and legitimized 

vigilante movements responsible for violent and sometimes lethal 

attacks on Latinos. Here is another example. 

The case of nine-year-old Brisenia Flores and her father, Raul, 

who were killed at the hands of Shawna Forde and Jason Bush— 
12 

all members of the Minutemen Defense organization in Arizona. 

The Flores were murdered in their own home as they were being 

robbed. Brisenia Flores was nine years old when she pleaded for 

help and was shot dead in her home. 

If Senate bill 1070 has been successful in anything, Mr. Chairman, it has been successful in breaking up families by separating 

hard-working immigrant parents from their children and limiting 

the success of our Latino students. 

These parents and children live in fear every day, fear of being 

separated from each other. It is a common practice of parents to 

teach their children a phone number of a family member that they 

can trust in the event that the parents get swept away in one of 

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s raids in Phoenix. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, the State of Arizona has dealt with 

a lot of anti-immigration type legislation. The most recent was a 

ballot initiative that preceded Senate bill 1070 requiring undocumented students to pay out-of-State tuition. The DREAM Act has 

been exactly that—only a dream. I use my Carl Hayden High 

School Robotics Team in my district, a source of pride in my legislative district, a school team that has beaten teams all over the 

world, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. If it 

was not for their immigration status, these students would have 

unlimited promise. 

Unfortunately, laws like Senate bill 1070 pander to a climate of 

fear and division that run rampant through the State of Arizona. 

Mr. Chairman, this fear was created for a purpose. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, I would submit to you that Senate 

bill 1070’s true intention, its primary objective, is to make secondclass citizens of U.S. Latinos, to discourage them from voting, from 

going to school, seeking employment, and realizing the American 

dream. 

Immigration enforcement is only a secondary objective. By their 

own admission, the authors and sponsors of Senate bill 1070 intend 

to harass immigrants, to create a hostile and miserable environment so that immigrants would choose to ‘‘self-deport.’’ They show 

no regard for the civil rights abuses of U.S. Latino citizens. 

This by its very nature defines their strategy as reckless and 

abusive. Senate bill 1070 is neither an immigration policy nor a 

legal position but, rather, a campaign of harassment and intimidation directed solely on the person’s complexion. 

Finally, the prime sponsor of Senate bill 1070 will try to give you 

some rationale for the chaos of this legislation. However, I would 

submit to you that any effort to justify profiling, harassment, or oppression of anyone is un-American, illegal, and unconstitutional on 

its face. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, I would pray you see the wisdom 

of passing legislation preempting States from addressing and enforcing immigration laws and put emphasis on passing comprehensive immigration reform, specifically the priority of passing the 

DREAM Act for the students not only in the State of Arizona but 

across this great country. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, these are my comments, and I respectfully submit them. 
13 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallardo appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Gallardo. 

Mr. Landfried, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF TODD LANDFRIED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARIZONA EMPLOYERS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM, PHOENIX, ARIZONA 

Mr. LANDFRIED. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to 

speak today. For the record, my name is Todd Landfried, and I am 

the executive director of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform. AZEIR, as we refer to ourselves, was formed in 2007 and has 

approximately 400 small, medium, and large business members. 

We are not open borders, pro-illegal businesses addicted to cheap 

labor, nor do we put profits before patriotism. We know there are 

serious problems on the border, and people’s lives are being affected, and the issue needs to be addressed. Businesses want legal 

and efficient access to the labor it needs when it needs it from 

wherever it must come, with little government interference or 

interaction as possible. Most importantly, we want you in Congress 

to solve the problem. 

My remarks will focus on whether laws like Arizona’s Senate bill 

1070 and others are good public policy based upon their impacts on 

business and the economy. By good public policy, I mean what are 

the outcomes? Did they secure the border? Did they create jobs and 

reduce State expenses? Did they fulfill their proponents’ promises? 

It is a legitimate question, especially at a time when program accountability is so important. What is wrong with holding Statelevel immigration laws to the same scrutiny? 

In my written testimony, I have shown that this attrition 

through enforcement scheme has been tried before at the city, 

county, and State level going back to 2006. What has come from 

these past attempts? The short answer: Nothing good, unless your 

only goal is to make brown people move. 

After Oklahoma passed HB 1804 in 2007, the Oklahoma Bankers 

Association found the loss of 90,000 unauthorized workers and 

their families resulted in a $1.9 billion loss to the State’s gross 

State product. The Urban Institute and the Migration Policy Institute found negligible savings on Oklahoma public services from the 

departure of the undocumented because they are ineligible for 

those benefits in the first place. 

A Georgia Restaurant Association survey found in November 

2011 that 71 percent of their members had labor shortages and estimates the average monthly sales losses due to the labor shortage 

was $21,000 per store. 

Georgia farmers told their Governor they needed 11,000 workers 

to bring in that spring’s fruit crop. Governor Deal offered up probationers as a solution, and on the first day, 11 showed up. A week 

later, there were seven left. The losses that farmers encountered in 

2011 was an estimated $391 million. One analyst said, ‘‘We have 

turned good workers into criminals and turned criminals into bad 

workers, losing on both ends of the deal.’’ Exactly. 

Alabama is rethinking HB 56; 25 percent of Alabama’s construction workers have left the State, with few replacements. Towns like 
14 

Russellville report sales tax revenue losses exceeding $8.5 million. 

Statewide losses in State income and sales tax collections are estimated to be between $56 million and $264 million. 

Arizona continues to suffer. Total losses from cancellations and 

bookings for conferences and tourism were $394 million and a loss 

of 4,236 jobs. In fact, there is a chart in the back of my written 

testimony that highlights those losses. 

Foreign businesses and executives refuse to work in Arizona. The 

loss of 150,000 consumers from the Arizona economy resulted in an 

estimated decline in gross State product of $24.4 billion, or 9.6 percent, the loss of 291,000 direct and indirect jobs, and a resulting 

lost in tax revenue of $2.1 billion. Do these sound like the effects 

of a good law? 

We were told Senate bill 1070 would bolster the economy and 

create jobs, yet history convincingly demonstrates exactly the opposite. If these laws are so good, then why are the impacts so bad? 

The answer is you have bad outcomes because you had bad inputs. 

Put bluntly, we are being misled by proponents who routinely distort data, exaggerate impacts, cherrypick statistics, and in many 

instances, make it all up. You heard testimony about how it supposedly costs Arizona $2.6 

billion to educate, medicate, and incarcerate illegal aliens. The 

problem is that is not the whole story as it ignores financial contributions these workers make to the economy. Economic studies 

that consider both sides of the ledger show immigrants are a net 

benefit to Arizona of just under $1 billion. 

You heard 17 percent of Arizona’s prisoners are illegal aliens 

when in reality it is impossible to know. Why? Because the Arizona 

Department of Corrections combines unauthorized inmates with 

those who are here legally into a category calls ‘‘criminal aliens.’’ 

The latest number is 13.2 percent; therefore, the undocumented 

population must be lower. 

We are told because of Senate bill 1070 crime in Phoenix is at 

a 30-year low, yet there are no data from Phoenix P.D., the Department of Public Safety, or the FBI to back that up. That fact was 

reiterated in this morning’s Arizona Republic. 

Mr. Chairman, nearly every statistic used to justify Senate bill 

1070 has serious factual problems with it. Newspaper fact-check researchers found that nine out of 10 immigration statements they 

checked, including some you heard today, are not the whole truth. 

I would encourage you to take a look at the four-plus gigabytes of 

reports and data on the DVD I provided to the Committee and educate yourself on the real facts. 

I am not saying all the concerns are illegitimate. I am not saying 

there are no costs. No one questions the serious issues of drugs and 

smuggling on the border. No one questions the security threats. No 

one denies there is an immigration problem. We can agree on all 

of this. But shouldn’t we spend our time looking at solutions that 

might work rather than on one we know that does not? 

If you want to ask a question, it should be: What else have you 

got? It amazes me that, with this scheme’s history of failure, Senate bill 1070 was the best idea they could come up with. Maybe it 

is because no other solutions were allowed to be heard and discussed. Fortunately, there are some great ideas for solving this 
15 

problem, but you do not get to hear them because we are spending 

too much time arguing about Senate bill 1070. We will discuss 

some of these solutions May 1st in the Rayburn Gold Room starting at 10 a.m. We have invited all Members of Congress. We hope 

your staff will attend. 

This continued fixation on Senate bill 1070 as some kind of viable solution when we know better is crazy. The Supreme Court’s 

decision will do nothing to change the fact that it remains bad policy and bad law. Congress, however, can and must do something 

about that, and you should not waste any time getting started. 

That solution must deal with the demand for labor as well as and 

at the same time as border security. Nothing else will work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, for 

your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Landfried appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Landfried, and let me 

thank all of our panelists for this testimony, and now we will begin 

with questions. 

I am going to direct some first questions to you, Mr. Pearce. 

First, I want to thank you for coming because we do not agree. 

That is obvious. But you have had the courage and integrity to 

come here and defend your views, and that is very much appreciated. 

Okay. Now, I am interested in trying to understand the general 

context behind the Arizona law. You were on Fox News on July 29, 

2010. You said your intent in writing Senate bill 1070 was—and 

this is your quote—‘‘to take the handcuffs off law enforcement, they 

will go home, they will self-deport.’’ Do you still stand by that 

statement? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Now, some have said that the Arizona law is necessary because the Federal Government has not secured the border. But to be clear, even if the border were completely secure and the government could show that no new people 

are entering the country illegally, you would still want Senate bill 

1070 to remain in effect to ensure that all of those who are already 

here without status either leave America or get apprehended or deported. Is that correct? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, can I give better than just a ‘‘yes’’ 

to that? 

Chairman SCHUMER. Sure, yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, it is simply the rule of law. You 

know, we have laws, all kinds of laws. You are never going to get 

100 percent compliance. We understand that. But laws without 

consequences are not laws at all. And I have heard some misinformation here today that is more disappointing. You know, if you 

will remember the case Muehler v. Mena in 2005, a 9–0 landmark 

decision by the United States Supreme Court, it struck down a 

prior decision by the Ninth Circuit Court about the Fourth and 

Fourteenth Amendments of those that are here illegally and when 

you can ask and when you cannot, and they struck it down and 

said you can ask anytime. Those safeguards are not in the federal 

law, and the Supreme Court has upheld you can ask anytime. 
16 

In Senate bill 1070, we prohibit racial profiling. In Senate bill 

1070, we say you have to have a legitimate contact. In Senate bill 

1070, we say you have to have reasonable suspicion. Those are the 

basic things taught in a police academy to every young recruit. 

Civil rights, you know, the proper respect and decorum of our citizens and those that we come in contact with. 

I find it very demeaning to law enforcement that we would assume that those kinds of things go on. You are always going to 

have exceptions to every law when you have thousands and thousands of arrests, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. PEARCE. But that is demeaning to our law enforcement community to make that. And I want to—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Go ahead, please. 

Mr. PEARCE. If I might, sir, when you talk about the police chiefs 

not supporting Senate bill 1070, those that are appointed bureaucrats from open border mayors in most cases, what did support it 

is nine out of 15 sheriffs. Arizona Police Association, 10,000 officers, 23 agencies, Arizona cops, 6,000 officers, the FOP, every single organization that represents boots on the ground supported 

Senate bill 1070 and worked with me to make sure that we created 

the kind of exceptions that they could make in doing their job when 

necessary. It is the rule of law, mirrors federal law. It is not—we 

did not regulate. That is an exclusive—exclusive—responsibility of 

the Federal Government, and I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, on 

that. But enforcement has never been the exclusive responsibility. 

We do not hear this about drug laws. We do not hear this about 

gun laws. We do not hear this about bank robbery or the other federal crimes that we enforce on a daily basis. States have always 

had—had Congress wanted to preempt the States from enforcing 

the law, they would have used their plenary powers. They have 

never done that. There has never been a preemption. It has always 

been a collaborative effort between local law enforcement and the 

Feds to secure this Nation, and that should always be our priority, 

the rule of law, dignified, compassionate, respectful, but not apologetic for enforcing our laws and securing our borders. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I appreciate that, and I wanted to give you 

the opportunity to state your whole case because, obviously, you 

are outnumbered here. 

Mr. PEARCE. That is usually the case, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Well, again, I appreciate your being 

here. But I do want to ask the question again, just if you could give 

me a yes or no answer on that. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Which is, if the border were completely secure, if the government could show and we would all agree that no 

new people are crossing the border, however that was accomplished, you would still want Senate bill 1070 to remain in effect 

so that the people who are already here without status would leave 

or be apprehended and deported. Is that right? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean to be difficult. A yes 

or no answer does not—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Just give me your answer to that question. 
17 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, let me give the answer, because, again, we are 

a generous Nation. We have more people in this country than every 

other developed nation combined, legally. But, yes, the laws must 

be enforced, and with that number you talk about, there ought to 

be still arrest and deportation. The largest gangs in this country 

are made up of illegal aliens. The terrorists, the kidnappers, the 

human smugglers, the drug smugglers. You cannot ignore—you 

cannot just carve out a little section when you do these kind of 

things. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No, I appreciate that. But your answer is 

yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. In trying to promote self-deportation, 

do you make any distinctions if the person has been in America for 

20 years or has U.S. citizen children or was brought here as a 

minor through no fault of their own? The law does not make any 

distinctions among those types of people, right? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, federal law does not make any distinction. That is a regulatory function, not a function of the States. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Next question. Do you believe that 

many national political leaders agree with your policy of self-deportation? Or do you think you have a minority view here even within 

your own party? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I have a majority view. Senate bill 

1070 is supported two to one from coast to coast across this Nation. 

After it was originally passed, 73 percent, a Rasmussen poll, 73 

percent of Arizonans supported Senate bill 1070. It is still by far 

the majority in favor of Senate bill 1070. Thirty-four States I have 

had contact with, they have indicated their desire to pass 1070-like 

bills. It is—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. So you believe it is a majority opinion of 

your party and of the country. Is that right? 

Mr. PEARCE. By far the majority opinion of my party, but the majority opinion of America from coast to coast. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you. 

I want to talk a little bit about racial profiling. There are many 

critics who say Senate bill 1070 is unconstitutional because it will 

lead to racial profiling of Latinos, Asians, and other groups. So I 

want to try to break down the law step by step with you to understand your thought process better because you are the author. No 

one knows this better than you. 

First, to be clear, as you said to several Arizona news outlets, 

March 5, 2012, you ‘‘know why [SB 1070] was written and know 

every section of the bill. There is nobody better to explain this law 

to the Senate’’ than you. Is that an accurate quote? 

Mr. PEARCE. That is an accurate quote. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. So let me go to Section 3B, known as 

the ‘‘Stop and Arrest Section,’’ whose language is behind me. You 

are familiar with that section, I presume. You wrote the law. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. I want to show you a blow-up of the 

official training manual given to the Arizona police officers on Senate bill 1070. Behind me here on the screen are the factors the 

training says police may consider in developing a reasonable sus-
18 

picion that a person is an illegal immigrant and needs to be 

checked. I am going to highlight a few. It says ‘‘in the company of 

other unlawfully present aliens.’’ It says ‘‘the vehicle is overcrowded or rides heavily.’’ It says ‘‘dress,’’ and then it says ‘‘demeanor, for example, unusual or unexplained nervousness, erratic 

behavior, refusal to make eye contact.’’ 

The one that arouses my curiosity and bothers me is dress. What 

does an illegal immigrant dress like? Why is dress listed in those 

factors? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, that was put together by AZ Post. 

I understand they worked in cooperation with ICE to develop the 

profile of those folks after making legitimate contacts. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But explain to me as the author, do you 

think dress is an appropriate—— 

Mr. PEARCE. This is—Mr. Chairman, this is not—this is from AZ 

Post. This is training material from AZ Post. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Not a part of the bill. 

Chairman SCHUMER. From the Arizona Police. 

Mr. PEARCE. Right, not a part of the bill. 

Chairman SCHUMER. I understand. Well, do you think dress is an 

inappropriate measure—— 

Mr. PEARCE. I think when a combination—— 

Chairman SCHUMER [continuing]. Is a reason to stop somebody 

because of their dress? And then I would ask you, if it is not inappropriate, what does an illegal immigrant dress like? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, almost all—when you train a police 

officer—I have been in this business for a long time in law enforcement and public safety. It is a compilation of issues that tend to 

raise the level of suspicion to the level of probable cause, not any 

one isolated incident. This is just a list of things that lead you to 

ask questions. I know questions are a dangerous thing. People 

might actually give you an answer. So—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Sometimes questions are a dangerous thing 

because they lead to profiling, and it seems to me when the word 

‘‘dress’’ is used—I mean, just give me—do you in your experience— 

you have lived in Arizona your whole life, I believe? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Do illegal immigrants dress any differently 

than—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman SCHUMER [continuing]. Legal immigrants or American 

citizens? 

Mr. PEARCE. I do not want to be confrontational, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No. I know. 

Mr. PEARCE. But I want to tell you, this is a list of things to look 

for, and they are trained by ICE. This was ICE training in terms 

of a compilation, but it is like anything—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. ICE did not—— 

Mr. PEARCE. No one issue does—if I am responding to a bank 

robbery or a Circle K robbery and I have got a description kicked 

out by radio of a white male, average height, white T-shirt, dark 

pants, running down the street, I am responding to that crime 

scene and I see a white male, white T-shirt, dark pants, turns out 
19 

to be jogging past, I stop him. I have a pretty good reason to ask 

him a few questions. When I get to the Circle K and I find out he 

is not the guy, he gets released. You have to respond to reasonable 

suspicion to do your job, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. My argument—— 

Mr. PEARCE. But this is just a list of things to look for. 

Chairman SCHUMER. First, I do not believe ICE sanctioned the 

use of the word ‘‘dress.’’ We will check that out. If they did—— 

Mr. PEARCE. I am just told that that is who they worked with 

in cooperation of developing that criteria, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So let me ask you this question: Instead of 

going through these criteria and other criteria, why didn’t you just 

say—and, again, the criteria are not yours. The Arizona police, as 

you say. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. That is what we say up there, mandatory 

check. But why didn’t you just say that everyone who is stopped 

by police has to be checked for legal immigration status? Why do 

you require the police to form opinions about whether a person is 

an illegal immigrant first before requiring police to ask that person 

for proof of legal status? Doesn’t the way you wrote the law either 

require or certainly inveigh toward racial profiling? 

Mr. PEARCE. Just the opposite, Mr. Chairman. Again, under federal law, you know—under the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona 

Constitution, we have the Equal Protection Clause. I knew those 

kinds of issues would be raised by those open-border folks that are 

against any enforcement. We have been sued on everything we 

have done from voting fraud, to stop voting fraud, welfare fraud, 

to going after illegal employers who compete illegally and 

immorally and have a competitive advantage over the honest employer. It does not seem like—no matter what we do, Mr. Chairman, we are attacked for simply enforcing the law and trying to 

protect American citizens and jobs for Americans. So you knew 

those questions would be asked. You knew they would come after 

you. We simply wrote the bill to preempt those kinds of silly arguments and try to protect—try to protect everybody’s rights. As a 

civil libertarian, I am a believer that everybody—you have to have 

a reason to do stuff. I do not want a police state. I want a reason 

to do something. That is why those—that is why that bill was written in the manner it was written. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So let me ask you again. Why wouldn’t it 

have done just what you say, rule of law, not discriminate, why 

wouldn’t it have been better to say that everyone stopped by the 

police should be checked for their status? Why come up with obviously a really problematic definition of suspicion? And you have 

seen in the regulations that it is problematic. 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not agree that it is problematic. In Arizona, first of all, we made the proper exceptions. If 

you have an Arizona driver’s license or a driver’s license from a 

State that requires proof of citizenship or legal presence, you are 

automatically exempt from that. That is axiomatic at that point 

reasonably that you are legal. All we wanted to do in this bill is 

common sense. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Right. 
20 

Mr. PEARCE. You know, we teach our officers to have common 

sense. You know, respond to reasonable suspicion. Not everybody— 

you know, you stop somebody, I do not want to hold a family up 

while I am asking all kinds of silly questions when there is no reason to ask those kinds of questions. This was based on reasonableness, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, I guess many would disagree with 

that—— 

Mr. PEARCE. I understand. 

Chairman SCHUMER. [continuing]. Including some on the panel. 

Let me ask you a question about minors. If a police officer stops 

a minor, what documentation is the minor supposed to show the 

police officer to prove that he or she is a U.S. citizen? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, it is a little different for minors, 

needless to say. They are not required—and if you are an adult, 

you are required under federal law to carry your indicia with you 

at all times, at all times under 8 U.S.C. 1304 and 1306. You know, 

so, again, reasonableness is the thing. If there is not a reason to 

ask, officers are not going to ask. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well let me ask you this: There is a car 

driving—there is an adult driving it. There are minors in the back 

seat. Now, the law allows the children to be checked, right? 

Mr. PEARCE. Well, Mr. Chairman, at a certain age—and I am not 

recalling the age. At a certain age—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. No, there is no age. Just all the children 

can be checked and should be checked under the law and its regulations. What are the children supposed to show? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, if they do not have ID, they are not 

supposed to show anything. You are not required to have ID unless 

you are a driver or, you know, in Arizona we allow children to go 

down and get an Arizona ID at any age if they have a parent—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. So you think all—under this law, children, 

to prevent themselves from being sent to a detention center or 

whatever, would have to carry some kind of ID. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, that is not accurate. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, that is—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, there is a reasonableness again inferred. You know, you are taking the extreme, and I understand 

trying to make your point, but, Mr. Chairman, it is just not accurate, it is just not so. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, does the law say anywhere that children do not have to be checked when they are stopped in a car in 

the situation? I understand the law says the opposite. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, it gives—this law makes exceptions 

to law enforcement, you know, to make reasonable decisions based 

on the circumstances at the time. I suspect—and, again, I think it 

is demeaning to law enforcement to assume they do not know how 

to do their job in a respectful, proper—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I want to go to ‘‘demeaning to law enforcement’’ because—I am just going to submit for the record Section 

3B, and it does not list any exceptions at all. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, it is modeled after federal law. 
21 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Well, but there are no exceptions 

here. I do not believe federal law is based—I do not believe this is 

consonant with federal law. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me go to—— 

Mr. PEARCE. It mirrors federal law, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let us go to ‘‘demeaning police.’’ Doesn’t 

your law permit any citizen of Arizona to sue any police department or any individual police officer who refuses to ask for immigration documents during a stop? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, let me correct you. It does not allow 

them to sue any individual law enforcement officer when they use 

the discretion that we give them under this law and other laws. 

That discretion has allowed the officer—and if you read the bill 

carefully, you will see that discretion. In fact, we give the officers—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. But there is a right to sue. 

Mr. PEARCE. Let me—I understand, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. So just explain that right to sue to everybody. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, sir, and I will. But law enforcement has qualified immunity under this bill because we knew that they would be 

sued whether they do or they don’t. What the lawsuit has done— 

that phrase in our founding document, ‘‘We, the people’’? In Arizona, we still believe in ‘‘We, the people.’’ We gave we, the people, 

the ability to sue their agency, their government, if they will, if 

they fail—have a policy—have a policy that limits or restricts the 

enforcement of our immigration laws as required under federal law. 

So, yes, sir, we do give citizens a right of—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. It is up on the chart here. It says, ‘‘Any person who is a legal resident of this State may bring an action’’—that 

is a judicial action—‘‘an action in superior court to challenge any 

official or agency’’—not just the agency but any official, that is the 

words of the statute—‘‘of this State or county or city or town or 

other political subdivision of this State that adopts or implements 

a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws.’’ 

Now, John Smith could decide that Officer Jones has adopted a 

policy of not stopping the right people in John Smith’s mind and 

sue, and that would be an actionable case to see how the court 

would decide it. And I just want to ask you this: Is there any other 

statute in Arizona that you are aware of that allows citizens to sue 

police officers for not enforcing a particular law? 

Mr. PEARCE. My understanding, there are a couple, but let me 

explain—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I have not come across any, so you can submit them into the record. But I would state for the record I have 

not seen any. We checked that. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. Mr. Chairman, again—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. So I would ask you—I am just going to ask 

you this and then let you respond at some length. Why was this 

law singled out to allow this action? Isn’t that demeaning to police 

officers? And—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman—— 
22 

Chairman SCHUMER [continuing]. Just one other question, maybe 

the most important. Won’t that push them to do things to protect 

themselves from a lawsuit that they believe they should not do? 

You can answer all of those. 

Mr. PEARCE. And I am grateful for that chance to answer that. 

Law enforcement sat down with me to write that section, Mr. 

Chairman, and the ‘‘official’’ was interpreted as somebody in an official capacity to set policy, and that is why the qualified immunity 

is to the officer on the street where we give them the discretion to 

enforce this law. 

You know, law enforcement and attorneys sat down as we decided and mulled over that language. That was their language put 

in by them, comfortable language that they felt gave the officers 

the protection they need to have discretion, at the same time language that was more compelling to the city to eliminate. Sanctuary 

policies are illegal, Mr. Chairman. It is illegal under 8 U.S.C. 1644 

and 1373 to have a policy that limits or restricts the enforcement 

of these laws. Not only are States not preempted, they are preempted from having a policy that preempts them under federal 

law. That is what this is about, making sure they do their job, taking the handcuffs off them, as you have stated and quoted me, and 

that is exactly what this is doing. And we gave them qualified immunity while enforcing this law and gave the citizens the right to 

hold their government accountable. 

Chairman SCHUMER. How does it square taking handcuffs off law 

enforcement and then allowing citizens to sue law enforcement because an average citizen with no experience in his or her judgment 

says they are not enforcing the law? It is sort of a contradiction, 

and I am just curious as to why on this particular law you wrote 

in that provision when it does not exist, I do not think, in any 

other Arizona statutes, but certainly not in the vast majority of law 

enforcement statutes? As somebody who has been a pretty pro-law 

and order, pro-police person in my career, the last thing police like 

is to be sued by citizens supplementing their own judgment. 

Mr. PEARCE. Again, I do not want to, you know, take this into 

he said/she said back and forth, Mr. Chairman, but the truth is 

they helped write it. That was their comfort—that was language 

they were very, very comfortable with. They sat down with me. We 

sat with their attorneys and with the associations and wrote that 

language to make them comfortable. That is why—and, again, Mr. 

Chairman, you know, this whole thing—you know, when you talk 

about no other bill—I do not know of any other law that brings me 

to Washington, D.C., in Arizona State law that requires me to defend the rule of law. I have not been here to defend the tough DUI 

laws that we have. I have not been here to defend the human 

smuggling laws that we have. I have not been called to Washington, D.C., to defend anything else. So you see why we have to 

be very careful when we wrote this and put those provisions in 

there? Mr. Chairman, we knew that we would be challenged by everybody in town for simply trying to enforce our laws and protect 

our citizens and protect jobs for Americans. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Well, thank you. I have one more 

area of questioning, but I do not see how it either protects police 

or protects you from being criticized to then allow citizens to sue 
23 

the police because in their judgment they did not enforce it. But 

let us go to documentation. 

Mr. PEARCE. Could I just—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, please, you can answer that. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, that law is not—that piece has not 

been enjoined. Only four sections of SB 1070 have been enjoined. 

The other six are in place. That one is in place. We had not one 

lawsuit from the citizens. This runaway train that you are kind of 

painting a picture of, the citizens are going to jump up and look 

forward to suing their government, it has not happened. We do not 

have one lawsuit as of today because those policies have been 

eliminated in the State of Arizona. 

Chairman SCHUMER. But that is because the rest of the law has 

been enjoined if it is—— 

Mr. PEARCE. No, it has not—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. If it goes back into effect, we will see citizens sue. 

Mr. PEARCE. But, Mr. Chairman, that is not true. In the first 

part of SB 1070, it says you will not have a policy that limits or 

restricts the enforcement of these laws so the slightest degree—to 

the slightest degree. So there must be some compliance. Citizens 

are not running to the courts to sue. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Let me go to one final area of questions, 

and I appreciate my colleague, Senator Durbin, being patient here. 

There is another chart I want to put up behind me. Do you know 

how many forms of identification exist today that can be shown to 

prove your lawful status in the United States by federal law? 

Mr. PEARCE. I do not know the exact number. 

Chairman SCHUMER. No, I did not either, so do not feel bad 

about that. But there are 53. The answer is that there are at least 

53 documents that the Department of Homeland Security says will 

prove lawful status. 

Now, again, I am going to show you—those are the 53. You do 

not have to read them all. There are a lot of them. That is the 

point. 

Now I am going to show you your training manuals, the Arizona 

police training manuals, and it says the only documents are—much 

more limited, and I will read them: a U.S. passport, U.S. military 

DD214, U.S. military ID card, U.S. military dependent card, U.S. 

birth certificate, U.S. and State government employee ID cards, 

tribal ID cards, and driver’s licenses. So there are just eight documents. 

Now, according to the law, if a legal immigrant shows—this is a 

legal immigrant, not illegal—any of these 45 other valid documents 

to police—this is according to your law—they have to be taken to 

an ICE facility to have their immigration status determined by a 

Federal Government official or wait on the side of the road for an 

ICE official, a federal official, to come before they can be released. 

Is that correct? That is what the law says, right? 

Mr. PEARCE. No, that is not quite correct, Mr. Chairman. There 

is a 24/7 hotline that ICE has set up and also 287(g) trained officers who are trained—or if they are cross-certified as federal 

agents can make determination for those purposes. It is usually a 

five-minute phone call on the phone to an ICE agent or a 287(g) 
24 

trained agent, and there are 200-something that are trained in 

Maricopa County alone, Maricopa County deputies. So it is a fiveminute conversation on the telephone. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Well, I just want to submit for the record 

a statute of the police training manual again, Arizona police: ‘‘If 

reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence exists and it is practicable (see below), call ICE, CBP, or a 287(g) officer to determine 

the immigration status of the person.’’ So, in other words, you are 

not consonant with federal law. You are not helping federal law enforcement. In other words, if you are doing what you say you are 

doing in this statute, you would say these State police officers, if 

they saw any one of these 53 documents, should be able to say, 

okay, that is ID and go on your way. But instead what Arizona 

does—and it does it in a lot of senses; this is just one little example—is it restricts the federal law and substitutes its own judgment. Isn’t that correct? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, no, that is not correct. And, again, 

they have a hotline—these are guidelines, as most policy—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, but—— 

Mr. PEARCE. These are guidelines for those officers, and then as 

you noticed, what you just read, then call. That is a 24/7 line. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Why is it that the State police officer under 

your law can enforce some provisions that are allowed in federal 

law but not so many others? Isn’t that—that is not helping the 

Federal Government enforce the law. That is supplanting your 

judgment and restricting the federal law. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree. That is not 

what it does at all. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. 

Mr. PEARCE. It simply gives them guidelines of documents that 

are acceptable on their face, and any other questions you have, you 

simply call ICE or a 287(g) trained officer. Again, I will repeat myself, and I hate to be too redundant here, but it is a five-minute 

conversation. It happens every day of the week. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Yes, but I am sure there are many other instances that are like the clip that Senator DeConcini showed where 

they have to be brought to a particular place, detained, and somebody else has to look at them. We will ask these other witnesses—— 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, we do that for—— 

Chairman SCHUMER [continuing]. If they are familiar—— 

Mr. PEARCE [continuing]. DUI guys, too, and some—you know, 

that is an officer discretion. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. Thanks. 

I have a few more questions for the other witnesses, but I have 

kept Senator Durbin long enough, so I am going to call on him now 

to ask some questions, and then I will go back. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

line of questioning. 

Let me start, if I might, with Senator Gallardo. There is an agency in Chicago. It is a charity. It is called Las Mujeres Latinas en 

Accion. It has been in business for over 20 years. It was established 

in the Hispanic neighborhoods of Chicago as a domestic violence 

shelter, primarily for new immigrants to this country and for the 
25 

undocumented, so that if women and children were the victims of 

violence, they had a safe place to go. They had someone who would 

listen to them, counsel them, and refer them to law enforcement 

in those circumstances where perhaps the husband has been abusive to the mother/the wife and even abusive to the child. 

I have supported them throughout my time in office, because I 

do not believe any of us want to see that happen, and we want to 

do everything we can to stop those guilty of that type of crime. 

You talked about the impact of this law, this Arizona immigration law, on people living in Arizona. Could you tell me your opinion as to whether or not this law makes it easier or harder for an 

undocumented mother to come forward and to report to law enforcement domestic violence or even the abuse of her children? 

Mr. GALLARDO. Definitely, Mr. Chairman, Senator. Senate bill 

1070 has not even been fully enforced. I mean, there are still portions of it that have not been acted on, and the portions dealing 

with local law enforcement trying to enforce immigration—or forcing them to enforce immigration law—and just a real quick comment in regards to Mr. Pearce’s comments in regards to law enforcement. The first lawsuit filed against Senate bill 1070 was a 

Phoenix police officer. We are talking an officer on the street who 

came forward spending his own dollars to file a lawsuit against the 

bill because of exactly these types of situations. The wall that is 

placed between law enforcement and the Latino community is 

there, and the law—Senate bill 1070 has not even gone into effect, 

and there is already the wall there. 

So you have situations like women who are in a domestic violence situation who are too fearful of going to law enforcement and 

reporting their abuser because of the fear of them getting deported 

and separated from their kids. 

So, I mean, this law has not even been in effect, and we are already feeling the consequences. And it is unfortunate that you see 

women constantly—I work real closely with the Coalition Against 

Domestic Violence in the State of Arizona, and report after report 

of situations where women who are undocumented, who are in a 

relationship, are for the most part held hostage in their own home 

because of their fear of going to law enforcement. Senate bill 1070 

has not even been put into effect, and we are already seeing this 

barrier. 

You ask any law enforcement officer in the State of Arizona, they 

will tell you the number one way for them to solve any type of 

crime is working real closely with the community. It is community 

policing. That is how they resolve crime. It is having folks going 

to law enforcement and reporting these types of crimes when they 

are victims or when they witness crimes. Unfortunately, Senate bill 

1070 puts a wall right between law enforcement and the Latino 

community, and particularly with women suffering from domestic 

violence, too fearful to go to police to ask for help because of their 

fear of, one, being deported and, even worse, being separated from 

their kids, and that is their big concern. 

Senator DURBIN. Or being charged under this law. 

Mr. GALLARDO. Exactly. 

Senator DURBIN. Because of a reasonable suspicion that they are 

in this country in undocumented status. So here is a mother, a 
26 

wife, a victim of domestic violence, perhaps with a child who is a 

victim of child abuse or worse, who is fearful to come to the law 

to protect herself or her child because of this 1070. 

Mr. GALLARDO. And, Mr. Chairman, Senator, we are pointing out 

an area in the law that—this is exactly why Governor Brewer denied the invitation. She cannot justify the very bill that she signed. 

It is these types of situations that if you ask her these questions, 

she cannot answer them, because it has put a very polarizing sense 

with law enforcement and the community. I mean, this wall that 

is placed in front of women or victims of crime that 1070 is really 

hurting these victims. And it is unfortunate, particularly in the 

cases of domestic violence where you have women who are just held 

hostage. They are in terrifying situations, and now we have a bill 

that has not even been fully enacted, and it is still already creating 

this huge wall. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Pearce, you published something on, I believe it was, May 

24th of 2011 entitled ‘‘Warning: The Nightmarish DREAM Act is 

back,’’ and it was on the letterhead of BanAmnestyNow.com. It was 

a lengthy piece. ‘‘It Is Back, Help Us Stop the DREAM Act’’ was 

the title of it. And in one section of it, you suggested that the proponents of the DREAM Act talk about those who would be eligible 

as honor students and so forth. And you went on to say, ‘‘What the 

pro-amnesty interests never show are the tens of thousands of 

criminals, drug dealers, human traffickers, and gangsters who are 

caught and sent back over the border each year, only to return 

time and time again. Help me stop the DREAM Act.’’ 

Mr. Pearce, have you read the DREAM Act? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, which version? 

Senator DURBIN. Well, that is a correct statement. It has 

changed. But there has been one consistent thing throughout. The 

one consistent thing is people with a serious criminal record will 

never be eligible for the DREAM Act. Never. There has never been 

a version of the bill that I have been sponsor of that would allow 

anyone guilty of being criminal, drug dealer, human trafficker, or 

gangster to be allowed into the United States under the DREAM 

Act. Do you disagree with that? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, I do to some degree because not all those are 

convictions. Not all those are convictions, Mr. Chairman. We are 

only talking about convictions that would be prohibited from it. 

Second, Arizona, the voters have voted 75 percent to not allow 

the DREAM Act—— Senator DURBIN. That does not answer my question, sir. I am 

asking you whether a person who has been convicted of drug dealing is eligible under the DREAM Act. 

Mr. PEARCE. Convicted, Mr. Chairman, they probably would not 

be eligible under the DREAM Act. But the DREAM Act goes much 

farther, as you know. It is a form of amnesty within itself. You 

know, and, again, I do oppose the DREAM Act. I will make it very 

clear, Mr. Chairman. And, again, Mr. Durbin, these are always difficult issues, Mr. Durbin. All of us have a heart, and all of us have 

compassion. But laws that have no consequences are no laws at all. 

Senator DURBIN. So let me ask you this: If you were speeding 

down the highway and had your infant in a car seat in the back 
27 

seat, and you were pulled over and charged with speeding, should 

that infant get the ticket, too? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Chairman, that is not—Mr. Durbin, I do not follow that analogy at all. 

Senator DURBIN. No one should because—— 

Mr. PEARCE. It does not happen. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, I will tell you how it happens. It happens 

when an infant is brought to the United States and the parents do 

not file the papers. The infant did nothing wrong. The infant has 

lived here its entire life and graduated high school and now wants 

a chance to earn its way into legal status, and you are saying because the parent did not file the papers, now the child must suffer. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Durbin, if I might respond. You know, again, 

you need to blame those responsible and not us for having it be a 

Nation of laws. I have met with these students at ASU. I have met 

with a bunch of them that are in that status. And we even shared 

some tears together. Some of those are wonderful kids. And I do 

not how you carve out—because the way this bill works, it is always a blanket to everybody. It does not carve out individually. It 

is a blanket amnesty for those folks. 

There are exceptions that I think the law allows, certain exceptions of the law, but those ought to be carefully executed exceptions, Mr. Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Pearce, Mr. Pearce, the DREAM Act is not 

blanket amnesty. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes—— 

Senator DURBIN. You have to earn your way into legal status. 

Let me introduce you to another one of your neighbors from Arizona. I would like you to get to know him a little bit here while 

you are at this hearing. His name is Oscar Vasquez. He grew up 

in your home State, spent his high school years in junior ROTC. 

He entered a college-level robot competition sponsored by NASA. 

He was competing against students from MIT and other top universities. He won first place. 

In 2009, Oscar graduated from Arizona State University with a 

degree in mechanical engineering. Not exactly a criminal, drug 

dealer, human trafficker, or gangster. He was one of the top three 

students in his class. 

Let me tell you what happened after he graduated and realized 

he could not be licensed as an engineer because he is undocumented. His parents brought him here as a child. He has no legal 

status in this country. He went back to Mexico. And while he was 

in Mexico, the Obama administration granted Oscar a waiver to reenter the United States. Now, at any time before he left for Mexico, 

he could have been pulled over under your law, under Senate bill 

1070, reasonable suspicion, maybe the way he dresses or the fact 

that he may have an accent. Without the waiver from the Obama 

administration, Oscar would have been barred from returning to 

the United States for at least 10 years and separated from his wife, 

Carla, and their two-year-old daughter, Samantha, who live in Arizona and are American citizens. 

Well, the good news is he was given the waiver. He came back 

to the United States. He is an example of a DREAM Act-eligible 

person. Do you know what he did when he came back to the United 
28 

States, Mr. Pearce? I am about to tell you. He immediately enlisted 

in the United States Army. He completed basic training, and then 

he was sworn in as an American citizen. Today Oscar is serving 

our country and his country, the United States of America, in Afghanistan. 

Now, you have criticized the DREAM Act as ‘‘some liberal dream 

of creating an American military staffed with foreign soldiers.’’ Do 

you consider Oscar Vasquez a foreign soldier? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Durbin, you know, Oscar is a good story to use. 

The exception was made. That is exactly what I am talking about. 

Those exceptions ought to be carefully thought out and not just a 

blanket amnesty or support. 

There is a cost to the American taxpayers for all this. You know, 

if you want to make exceptions, I am okay with the proper exceptions, and I think Oscar is probably one of those that met all the 

criteria that any American would be proud. And certainly I am 

proud that he would join the military, proud that he would defend 

the Nation he wants to be a part of. Those are good things, Mr. 

Durbin. Do not take—— 

Senator DURBIN. Be careful. It does look like you are getting 

close to the DREAM Act here. 

Mr. PEARCE. That is right. I am not in favor of a blanket amnesty approach to the DREAM Act or anything else. There are 

costs of hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Senator DURBIN. I have got to get you away from—— 

Mr. PEARCE. I am talking about the—— 

Senator DURBIN [continuing]. The cliches—— 

Mr. PEARCE [continuing]. Exceptions that are appropriate. We 

have them. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Pearce, you were in the legislature. I have 

got to get you away from the cliches to actually read the bill. 

Senator DeConcini, these stories about your fellow Arizona residents, you must know many yourself, families that are going 

through this. We are now reaching a point where these DREAM 

Act students are stepping up and self-identifying so people know 

who they are, what their dreams are, and what part they can play. 

You had the honor of representing the State of Arizona for so long. 

Can you put their stories in the context of your home State and 

this debate over Senate bill 1070? 

Mr. DECONCINI. Well, Mr. Chairman, I will make an attempt to 

do that. Had I been here, I would have supported the so-called 

DREAM Act. I supported immigration reform that is orderly, safe, 

and legal, and thus creates a pathway—not amnesty—a pathway 

to citizenship. There are numerous examples here of people—I 

serve on the Arizona Border of Regents. We govern the three universities, composed of eight appointed members. We have constantly had the problem of students coming to their presidents and 

some of them petitioning members of the Board of Regents to grant 

them some kind of an exemption, some way to stay in school. And 

our legislature put forward legislation that says they have to pay 

out-of-State tuition if they are going to stay in our universities and 

yet they may be deported under Senate bill 1070. It has caused immense pain and suffering in the Latino community. I know many 

of students caught up in this crisis. 
29 

And, you know, as long as we are on the subject matter, my distinguished colleague, former Senator Pearce, will tell you this is 

not profiling. It is profiling. Police officers tell you it is profiling. 

They feel they have to profile. There are two county sheriffs— located on the border with Mexico, Santa Cruz and Pima Counties. 

These two sheriffs are opposed to this bill. These two sheriffs are 

against it because it infringes on federal law, and they are not 

trained to enforce federal immigration law. The Secure Communities program that DHS has put in place has helped train them, 

but they refer people over when there is a violation of the law. 

So it is absolutely absurd to state that SB 1070 does not lead to 

profiling. This has become such a profiling issue in Arizona that 

two of our sheriffs, elected sheriffs, one in the largest county, is 

under investigation both criminally and civilly. The civil action is 

based on profiling. And that is the reality because people are being 

profiled. 

And, you know, you can talk about, well, that was not the intent. 

Maybe it was not the intent. ‘‘Oh, I have got a heart, and we do 

not want to do that.’’ But that is the fact. Imagine, two law enforcement officers duly elected enforcing this law are under investigation, one for criminal, one for criminal and civil, and the civil part 

is profiling, and the other one is misuse of the office. And I could 

tell you stories that would make your hair stand on end of public 

officials, including a superior court judge that was indicted because 

he opposed this particular sheriff, and two members of the Maricopa County supervisors who were indicted. That county attorney 

that indicted them with that sheriff has been disbarred in Arizona, 

and that sheriff is under investigation. 

So, you know, it has gotten so political, and if you talk out 

against some of the law enforcement people, you get arrested in Arizona. If you are judge and you rule against them—he brought a 

criminal action against a judge. All these actions were thrown out. 

All were thrown out. Maricopa County just settled a $1 million settlement lawsuit by one of those supervisors who sued after the case 

had been dropped the action of that prosecutor and because of that 

sheriff. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Senator. And I will just close. 

Thanks, Senator Schumer, for the extra time here. 

I want to echo his words as we did at our hearing on racial 

profiling. I have the highest respect for our law enforcement officials. The men and women who get up every morning and put that 

badge on and risk their lives for me, my family, my community, my 

neighborhood, my State, and this country deserve our respect. We 

do not help them in their job when we create laws like this which 

put them in a position of calling people out because of their status, 

not because of the suspicion they have even committed a crime. 

And that is not fair to them. It does not make their job any easier. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Thank you, Senator Durbin. 

I just have a few more questions, and these are to the other 

three witnesses. 

First, all of you are Arizona citizens and residents, right? Can 

you point out ways that illegal immigrants, undocumented immi-
30 

grants, dress differently than other people? What does it say about 

the Arizona police when they say that is one of the things to look 

for? 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, if I could just comment, as a 

former Senator, a former prosecutor, native Arizonan, a mother 

who was a native Arizonan, I am embarrassed for my State. I 

apologize for Arizona’s actions toward our Latino community, legal 

or illegal. This is not a way to treat people. So many of the religious organizations in our State, they have outreach programs. 

They do not ask whether or not you are an illegal immigrant. As 

Senator Durbin pointed out, the violence, domestic violence—for 

any other kinds of crimes, they do not ask, because that is what 

America is all about. And the Federal Government has the responsibility to enforce immigration laws. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Either Senator Gallardo or Mr. Landfried 

in terms of my question? 

Mr. GALLARDO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate bill 1070 has 

been the worst piece of legislation ever passed in the State of Arizona. If you look at Section 3B that you were mentioning before, 

where reasonable suspicion exists that a person is an alien and is 

unlawfully present in the United States, reasonably suspicious, the 

only way to determine this—it is not by clothing. It is by the color 

of their skin, end of discussion. There is no way to enforce Senate 

bill 1070 without using race as the determining factor if someone 

is here legally. I would propose that if Mr. Pearce or myself were 

walking down the street and you asked law enforcement to pick out 

the person who they suspect would be here undocumented, they are 

not going to be pointing at Mr. Pearce. They are going to be pointing at me. They have to use race in order to enforce Senate bill 

1070. That is the unfortunate part. 

And, Mr. Chairman, if Senate bill 1070 was so popular, why did 

the sponsor get recalled out of his own legislative district? 

At the end of the day, this bill is bad public policy by the State 

of Arizona. It has put a black cloud over the State of Arizona. It 

has given us a negative image that it is going to take us years to 

get out from underneath. It is poor public policy, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. The legislation, as you know, is before the 

Supreme Court tomorrow. We reached out to many Arizona officials. I will say this for Mr. Pearce. He was the only one who would 

come. If you believe in the law, if you voted for the law, if you are 

enforcing the law, why can’t you come and defend it? But Mr. 

Pearce was the only one who would come. He has had his opportunity to make his case. Governor Brewer did not want to come. 

We reached out far and wide to incumbent officials who supported 

the law. No one would come—which says something, I think, about 

the law. But it also is to your credit, Mr. Pearce, that at least you 

have the integrity to come here. 

I wanted to ask Senator DeConcini, the clip you showed, which 

was powerful and moving, I take it that happens frequently. 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, I do not have factual information 

to give you a number. I am told—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. But Mr. Pearce was sort of making it seem 

like it is an exception. 
31 

Mr. DECONCINI. I am told by law enforcement officials, the sheriff of Pima County has conveyed to me that, yes, that happens. And 

he feels that his deputies should not have to be put in a position 

of being liable if they should not ask somebody their immigration 

status. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Mr. Gallardo, are you familiar with how the 

law is being—well, it has not had much time to be enforced because 

it was enjoined, but—— 

Mr. GALLARDO. And, Mr. Chairman, I think that is the critical—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. I think the clip was actually before the law 

was passed, right? Is that right? 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, it had passed both Houses, and 

the Governor signed it about three days later, but the intent was 

there, obviously, so law enforcement knew it was going to pass. The 

Governor had said she was going to sign it. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Go ahead, Senator Gallardo. 

Mr. GALLARDO. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think that is the 

critical part of Senate bill 1070. It has not even been fully enacted. 

Yes, we are still already seeing the consequences over the last two 

years. We had Julio Mora, who was arrested, detained, he was 

brought in, and he is a U.S. citizen. These are situations after situations after situations. Juan Varela, a United States citizen who 

gets in an argument just days after Governor Brewer signs the bill, 

and violence occurs and Mr. Varela is dead over Senate bill 1070. 

These are unintended consequences that come from legislation 

when the State tries to fix what is ultimately a federal immigration 

problem and then forces law enforcement to try to enforce it. And 

then there are penalties against any law enforcement officer who 

does not enforce it, and—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Are you familiar with any other statute in 

Arizona, you or Senator DeConcini, where a private citizen can sue 

because the individual officer was not enforcing the law? 

Mr. GALLARDO. Not one. Not one, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, I have not done the research, but 

I served as a county attorney there. I knew of no laws at that 

time—that was way back in the last century, I must say, and I 

have not read every law, but I talk to police officers all the time. 

I know of no other law. Perhaps there are some, but I do not know 

of any. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We could not find one. There may be one 

or two, but it is certainly the exception to the rule. 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, it is the exception if there is. 

Chairman SCHUMER. If there is, yes. 

Mr. Pearce, you get the last word before I conclude here. 

Mr. PEARCE. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I get a little disappointed, you know, that we are the bad guys for enforcing the 

law. First of all, Proposition 200 passed in 2004 overwhelmingly by 

the citizens of the State of Arizona. That also has that right of action for citizens to sue their government if they are giving out benefits to those that are not eligible. 

Chairman SCHUMER. What is that one, Mr. Pearce? 

Mr. PEARCE. Proposition 200, known as—— 

Chairman SCHUMER. Is that an immigration law? 
32 

Mr. PEARCE. It deals with photo fraud, and the purpose was to 

have your ID at the polls and no benefits for those in the country 

illegally, and that right of action is in that bill. 

Chairman SCHUMER. And did that allow law enforcement explicitly to be sued? I do not think so. 

Mr. PEARCE. It was just the benefits. And, again, Mr. Chairman—and I do not mean to argue with you, but I will correct you 

again. Law enforcement helped write that section. It had nothing 

to do with suing law enforcement. They got qualified immunity in 

that bill, qualified immunity to enforce the law. It has to do with 

officials who are in the policy-setting position and agencies that set 

those policies. 

Chairman SCHUMER. Okay. 

Mr. PEARCE. But I am a little disappointed when folks talk about 

being embarrassed for the State of Arizona. Two to one across this 

country, we have a national crisis, and yet everybody wants to ignore that the cost of the damage, the crime, and if we can go 

through this—and if I had the time and Mr. Chairman would allow 

the time, I could give you a lot more information. Instead, these little anecdotal things that we pick out a victim that said, you know, 

because all of us are disappointed when inappropriate action is 

taken on anybody. This bill—and, again, illegal is a crime, not a 

race. It does not pick out any nationality. It just so happens 90 percent of those who violate our immigration laws come from across 

that southern border or are Hispanic. You know, this law does not 

pick those out. I mean, common sense, if I have got three young 

kids in the middle of Sun City at three o’clock in the morning, I 

do not care what color they are. They are going to get stopped and 

questioned. Kids do not live in Sun City. Three o’clock in the morning is another element. I mean, just a little common sense. 

Mr. Chairman, we have a national crisis, and yet we continue to 

ignore it. There are some that run for office and talk about building 

a darn fence, but never hear it again once they are elected. I think 

Americans are a little tired of the drive-by statements by politicians instead of dealing with the issue at hand, enforce our laws, 

secure our border. It is not too much to ask, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER. We have made big progress in that direction, sir. 

Let me conclude—— 

Mr. PEARCE. We have made some, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SCHUMER [continuing]. By saying this. First, let me 

thank the witnesses. I am sure it did not escape notice that none 

of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle came to this hearing. 

That is not surprising. They are absent from this hearing just as 

they have been absent from every attempt we have made to negotiate a comprehensive solution to our immigration problem. We 

need people to sit down, people on both sides of the aisle in a bipartisan way, and solve this problem. We have been unable to find negotiating partners. And so the absence of people here today not 

only shows an unwillingness, both in Arizona and here in Washington, of them to defend this law or be associated with this law, 

but it shows an absence of an ability—it is broader. We do not have 

anyone sitting down and saying here is what we want to do to solve 

this immigration problem. We get a lot of rhetoric out there on the 
33 

campaign trail, but we do not get any action, even if they would 

disagree with the kind of proposal that I and my colleagues have 

made to do that. And so they are not here. It is not surprising. It 

has been typical in terms of being absent on the entire immigration 

debate except in terms of rhetoric, sometimes, unfortunately, very 

inflammatory. 

With that, I am going to close this hearing and thank our witnesses. I just have to do a little housekeeping here. The record will 

remain open until Tuesday, May 1, 2012, for further testimony and 

questions. I would like to thank individuals and groups for submitting testimony for the record. Without objection, it will be added. 

That includes the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the American Immigration Council, the Rights Working Group, and the 

American Civil Liberties Union. I am asking unanimous consent 

these statements be inserted into the record, and my colleagues 

have until May 12th to put in statements as well. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman SCHUMER. I thank the witnesses again, and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(35) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
36 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN
37 
38 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CHUCK GRASSLEY
39 
40 
41 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RUSSELL PEARCE, PRESIDENT, BANAMNESTYNOW.COM, 

MESA, ARIZONA
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DENNIS W. DECONCINI, PARTNER, DECONCINI, MCDONALD, 

YETWIN & LACY, P.C., TUCSON, ARIZONA
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE M. GALLARDO, ARIZONA STATE SENATOR, 

PHOENIX, ARIZONA
75 
76 
77 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TODD LANDFRIED, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARIZONA

EMPLOYERS FOR IMMIGRATION REFORM, PHOENIX, ARIZONA
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

MISCELLANEOUS ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 

Æ